• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Public losing trust in President Obama

Goobieman said:
Why not cover everyone for the same money you're covering just a few?
Seems to me that this idea illustrates the abject ineffectiveness and inefficacy of the Medicare/aid system. More reason to remove it.
Click to expand...
Your not removing it though. You are just adding more inefficiencies. Why should you take $10k a year from me only to give me back $2.2k? Why not just take the $7.8k and have less work to do?

In the end everyone that doesn't want to participate in Medicare/Medicaid will be adding money to the pool (minus the individual check they would receive) that will then be checks given to the low-income families that qualify for the system.

So really all you are changing is that instead of giving the low-income families health care you are giving them a check and asking them to get it themselves while hoping that not only do they spend the money on health care, but also that the private insurance market doesn't dramatically inflate with all the new high risk business.


Goobieman said:
If you are irresponsible, you suffer the consequences.
What ever happened to consequences?
Click to expand...
We have to re-look at the health industry too then. I though it was illegal for a hospital to deny a dieing person medical attention. If it's not directly illegal the lawsuits surrounding situations like that would suggest it is indirectly.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Your not removing it though.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You're eliminating two huge federal bureacracies and replacing it with a single small one that simply disburses money. The rest of the work is done by the people themselves. It doesn't get more efficient than that.
Or does it? See below.

Why should you take $10k a year from me only to give me back $2.2k? Why not just take the $7.8k and have less work to do?
Click to expand...
That might be a great idea!!
If you'd prefer, rather than sending a check, you could disburse the money through the tax return system -- everyone gets a $2275 tax credit.
No issue there.

So really all you are changing is that instead of giving the low-income families health care you are giving them a check and asking them to get it themselves
Click to expand...
Yep. Personal choices, personal responsibilities.
Is health care important to you? Then you will choose wisely.
Its not? That's your choice -- but then, there are consequences.

but also [hoping] that the private insurance market doesn't dramatically inflate with all the new high risk business.
Click to expand...
That's a legitimate issue, but I'd wager that, on the whole, it would not be so dramatic as there are already a large number of 'high risk' people on private insurance.

We have to re-look at the health industry too then. I though it was illegal for a hospital to deny a dieing person medical attention.
Click to expand...
It is. That would change, leaving it up the hospitals and doctors themsleves -- if they want to do charity work, they can make that choice.

Also, remember that we're discussing the Federal issue here. States can do what they want -- and, if they were to follow a similar plan, the $2275 would increase.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Sure you are. You're eliminating two huge federal bureacracies and repaling it with a single small one that simply disburses money. The rest of the work is done by the people themselves. It doesnt get more efficient than that.
Or does it? See below.


That might be a great idea!!
If you'd prefer, rather than sending a check, you could disburse the money through the tax return system -- everyone gets a $2275 tax credit.
No issue there.


Yep. Personal choices, personal responsibilities.
Is health care important to you? Then you will choose wisely.
Its not? That's your choice -- but then, there are consequences.


That's a legitimate issue, but I'd wager that, on the whole, it would not be so dramatic as there are already a large number of 'high risk' people on private insurance.
Click to expand...

That all actually works for me.


Goobieman said:
It is. That would change, leaving it up the hospitals and doctors themsleves -- if they want to do charity work, they can make that choice.

Also, remember that we're discussing the Federal issue here. States can do what they want -- and, if they were to follow a similar plan, the $2275 would increase.
Click to expand...

I think this is the only issue I have left. So doctors and hospitals would have to choose to take the gamble on treating someone in an emergency knowing they may or may not be able to pay them.

I would worry about the moral aspect of it such as people dieing on the sidewalks outside of a hospital and the poverty level increase due to people not able to pay their medical bills with non-opt in procedures.
 
Gibberish said:
That all actually works for me.
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:

I think this is the only issue I have left. So doctors and hospitals would have to choose to take the gamble on treating someone in an emergency knowing they may or may not be able to pay them.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that?
The only people that wont be able to pay are those that did not choose to spend their $2275 responsobly. Concequences.

I would worry about the moral aspect of it such as people dieing on the sidewalks outside of a hospital and the poverty level increase due to people not able to pay their medical bills with non-opt in procedures.
Click to expand...
This would affect only those that did not choose to spend their $2275 responsobly. If ths worries you, or anyone else, then you all can choose to use your money to help these people.
 
Goobieman said:
What's wrong with that?
The only people that wont be able to pay are those that did not choose to spend their $2275 responsobly. Concequences.

This would affect only those that did not choose to spend their $2275 responsobly. If ths worries you, or anyone else, then you all can choose to use your money to help these people.
Click to expand...

To much Darwinism and not enough humanity for my tastes. It's not a personal issue (choosing to use your money to help) it's a national issue. I would like avoid America turning into India or Africa style poverty levels and where American citizens are openly left for dead in the streets because they weren't deemed "qualified" by the system.

American is a nation of opportunity and we have and most likely always will strive to help those less fortunate then ourselves, domestically and internationally.
 
Goobieman said:
"Suck it up" isn't a rational argument, regardless of how you phrase it.
Click to expand...

Yet that is the phrase you and others say to those that don't support the wars the U.S. wages.

Why isn't it valid for your cause?
 
Truth Detector said:
There is nothing factual to support this absurd assertion; it is merely an opinion that is made in ignorance of how the REAL world works.
Click to expand...

Um I don't like the War in Iraq, does that mean I get to pick and choose the wars I support?

Then why should you get to choose the programs the government supports?

Like or not the government supports and funds programs we don't get to pick and choose from.

There are MANY that I Don't support the Bush adminstration supporting and there are many I don't support the Obama administration choosing from and there are many I didn't support from Bush Sr., Clinton, Regan, Carter, etc.

Doesn't mean that just because I don't support them that the government sets aside my tax money because I don't support it.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
To much Darwinism and not enough humanity for my tastes.
Click to expand...
You always have the option to contribute to charity.

I would like avoid America turning into India or Africa style poverty levels and where American citizens are openly left for dead in the streets because they weren't deemed "qualified" by the system.
Click to expand...
1: Your hyperbolic response negates itself;
2: Everyone qualifies.

American is a nation of opportunity and we have and most likely always will strive to help those less fortunate then ourselves, domestically and internationally
Click to expand...
Again:
You always have the option to contribute to charity.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet that is the phrase you and others say to those that don't support the wars the U.S. wages.

Why isn't it valid for your cause?
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a concession of the point. Thanks.
 
aps said:
No. It's because only immature, nonthinking people like Rush Limbaugh use childish terms/vulgar images to express disagreement with Obama.
Click to expand...
Hey hey hey, let's not pick on Rush! He's just a lovable little fuzzball. :lol:
 
The more people who do not trust and disprove of Obama in anyway the better. Hate to paraphrase a quote of Ross Perot but he cheated on his wife and if she can't trust him why should we.
Here's a little something that should make real Americans feel good.

Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove :agree giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7.

So there is good news out there. Meaning there is still some hope.
 
Last edited:
Rasmussen now has Obama's approval rating below 50 percent.
 
Truth Detector said:
After watching his press conference the other day I am amazed that it is even that high; he came off as an arrogant dumbass.
Click to expand...

It was arrogant. How many times did he use his own name? How many times did he tell us that HE is the president?
 
Erod said:
It was arrogant. How many times did he use his own name? How many times did he tell us that HE is the president?
Click to expand...

The other stunningly stupid thing was his blaming the Republicans and his answer to the reporter who asked the OBVIOUS; isn't this issue with your own party?

:rofl
 
BoyKagome said:
-coughs.-Acorn.-Coughs.-
Click to expand...

And you called me here to try to debate you? You're still spinning the same wheels. Yeah because Acorn somehow was able to make up a bunch of votes a whole 7 million plus worth over McCain. So when George won in 2004 was that Acorn's failure or their triumph? Time to change the track on your ipod kago
 
PogueMoran said:
And you called me here to try to debate you? You're still spinning the same wheels. Yeah because Acorn somehow was able to make up a bunch of votes a whole 7 million plus worth over McCain. So when George won in 2004 was that Acorn's failure or their triumph? Time to change the track on your ipod kago
Click to expand...

Hmm I guess you don't know much about Chicago Politics and JFK then huh.
 
PogueMoran said:
And you called me here to try to debate you? You're still spinning the same wheels. Yeah because Acorn somehow was able to make up a bunch of votes a whole 7 million plus worth over McCain. So when George won in 2004 was that Acorn's failure or their triumph? Time to change the track on your ipod kago
Click to expand...
Wow, your first post here. Impressive. :roll:
 
Scorpion89 said:
Hmm I guess you don't know much about Chicago Politics and JFK then huh.
Click to expand...

I know plenty about both. You're talking about one state over 30 years ago. Not multiple swing states swinging to Obama in high numbers. Acorn merely registers voters how does what they do have an effect on the election if no one who they registers votes.

Let's go back to a bit of history here. Nixon narrowly lost in Texas and Illinois. At the time Nixon thought that fighting for a recount would hurt the office of the presidency so he stepped back. It was most likely because Eisenhower wouldn't support it so while Nixon stepped back his allies vigorously fought for a recount in about 11 states including Texas and Illinois. Also remember Kennedy was originally awarded the electoral votes for California until the absentee ballots came through and it was given to Nixon.

So here's how it played out. Party chairman Thurston Morton filed legal challenges in 11 states: Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

The federal judge in Texas threw out the suits as he claimed he lacked jurisdiction. However the other recounts did happen and the results were meaningless.

In Illinois the recount of 863 precincts was completed on December 9th, 1960. The original tally did undercount Nixon's votes but only by 943. It would have taken Nixon 4,500 votes to overcome the deficit.

So what's your beef both sides if anything were cheating. Nixon just didn't cheat well enough? And I find it Ironic that people would readily jump to Nixon's defense of that election when Nixon himself was caught cheating in another election.

There was a study that you can find here done about the election of 1960 done by Edmund Kalia talking about the charges of fraud and how little it actually affected the election.

Should we go more in depth?
 
Last edited:
American said:
Wow, your first post here. Impressive. :roll:
Click to expand...

You have to understand American Kago called me over here from youtube and all I hear out of him is acorn acorn but without anything to back it up. Its hard to debate someone who thinks the president isn't an american citizen.
 
Re: Poll: Public losing trust in President Obama..•

•►`Well, that's not a surprise anymore...Especially from different people in the world knows him.......~!◄









demande carte de
credit - Carte de credit, credit en ligne.
La notation des maison de credit rejaillit sur le client !
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
*Note, mods if this is not *BN* worthy, I beg your pardon, please move if that is the case.






Well well well. It seems that the honeymoon is over, and as people realize the emporer indeed has no clothes that its time to hold this man to his promises and actions. I for one am glad to see this empty suit's return to earth. The mod love mentality for him mad this American cringe at some of his countrymen....


That said, any of you obama supporters losing faith?
Click to expand...

I don't have faith in most American administrations. It doesn't matter what party they come from.
 
PogueMoran said:
You have to understand American Kago called me over here from youtube and all I hear out of him is acorn acorn but without anything to back it up. Its hard to debate someone who thinks the president isn't an american citizen.
Click to expand...




Who the hell is kago? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom